Seymour to Raiders

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from markes8336. Show markes8336's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders : I thought the conventional wisdome is that BB does not want  to get those top 5 first round draft picks. Too expensive and unproven.
    Posted by Blomie[/QUOTE]

    Pats are unlikely to keep the pick. They will parlay it into multiple lower picks as they have in the past. This is a very solid trade.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]     Heres more news on the Pats. Not only did they trade Seymore, but they also just signed free agent OG Kendall Simmons...former Steelers' first round pick in 2002: http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/09/06/patriots-trade-seymour-to-raiders-for-first-round-pick/
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    TexasPat, my only question to this move is why? We have 6 interior lineman on the roster, Mankins, Koppen, Neal, Connelly, Wendell and Orhnberger. Thats one to many already. Does Bill trade away Mankins as well who is also in the last year of his contract? Does he trade Neal to Cleveland, Denver or KC where they know the value he can bring to a running game?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: New England fans don't think.. they feel

    In Response to Re: New England fans don't think.. they feel:
    [QUOTE]In Response to New England fans don't think.. they feel : Yet everyone keeps saying the Pats are a "lock" this year. My dad told me that in the 1960s, everyone praised the Giants and Y.A. Tittle. Suddenly, their GM thought they were getting old and needed to revamp all at once. The team collapsed for years, and our lasting image of Tittle as an NFL player is him kneeling on the turf, helmet off, head bleeding. We may need to find the next generation, but recent drafts have us way behind other teams in that pursuit.
    Posted by BostonBobBlowhard[/QUOTE]

    I don't think the Patriots are going on a fire sale.  I think if you want to take a look at the past as reference, the 1980s Celtics are the poster boys for holding onto stars too long.    The Patriots have depth in DL, decent in LB, and youthful in DBs.  They might take a step back defensively in '09.  Perhaps that is why they loaded up on offense for a year or two to cover the defense transition.  By doing so, they are viable playoff team, and depending on the gel od the Defense, a SB contender.   

     I sometimes wonder if people play too many video games and fantasy football to logically understand that Father Time will catch up to any team.  It would be nice that no one ever ages and stays superstar great forever, but it doesn't happen that way!!  Change must be made.  Its not always nice, its not always easy.. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BTownExpress. Show BTownExpress's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    Obviously, the Pats weren't going to sign him next year.  Too many more productive Pats have contracts on the table.  Aquiring a 1st is a great way to recover a former (1st). 

    Perhaps, Oakland will tank (again) this year?  Are we going into the next draft with a slew of 1-3 rounders?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from simroy. Show simroy's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders :      Blomie:      Remember...a strike, and a new collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA looms. Odds are that by 2011, a new rookie salary structure will be in place which will severely restrict what top rookies can make...in return for some sort of uncapped free agency for veterans. 
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    TP3:  you may be right, but what concerns me is that the NFLPA is now lead by a much more dynamic, less-collaborative guy than in the past (no disrespect meant to the late Gene Upshaw).  The NFL, even in a down economy is making a good profit - heck, the NFL is America's passtime.  I can't envision a new union leader (regrettably, I can't remember his name) preparing to go thru this first major labor negotiations agreeing to a rookie cap.  Plus, I'd think he'd plug for guaranteed contracts, better benefits for retired players, etc.  He might as well ask for the moon - what's he got to lose.  The players would have to absorb loss of salary if a strike occurred granted, but the owners have many, many more millions of dollars to loose in the unfortunate event of a strike.  Of course, diehard football fans are the biggest loser, but we'll come back, we did after the last strike.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    The Patriots also have 3 second round picks at their disposal in 2010 to move up or down in 2010 or 2011

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    Keep in mind that the Pats had 3 primary players whose contractrs are up after this season, Seymour, Wilfolk and Mankins. If there is no league contract and 2010 is an uncapped year, the Pats can now franchise Wilfolk and retain Mankins as an RFA. The Pats realized they were going to lose Seymour regardless so they get a high 2011 first round draft pick instead of a 2011 third round compensatory pick. Boy BB doesn't know what he is doing does he trolls?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from One-If-By-Sea. Show One-If-By-Sea's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]Keep in mind that the Pats had 3 primary players whose contractrs are up after this season, Seymour, Wilfolk and Mankins. If there is no league contract and 2010 is an uncapped year, the Pats can now franchise Wilfolk and retain Mankins as an RFA. The Pats realized they were going to lose Seymour regardless so they get a high 2011 first round draft pick instead of a 2011 third round compensatory pick. Boy BB doesn't know what he is doing does he trolls?
    Posted by flasox[/QUOTE]

    I think everyone knows this is a good long term move. Any trade with a player that is north of 30 that brings a first round pick is a good move. Long term there is not doubt in my mind this is a great long term move.

    But I wanted to go 19-0 this year. I wanted another ring this year. Randy Moss is not getting younger, Tom Brady is not getting younger. You can talk about a 1st round QB stud, but the 1st round studs are more busts than studs. Maybe I am selfish, maybe I am foolish, maybe I am a troll, but I wanted to go 19-0, beat the Giants in the Super Bowl and cement the Pats in football history forever. No matter what you say about the long term, a Super Bowl this year is now harder. Put any spin you like on the trade, you can like it, love it or hate it, but winning the Super Bowl in 2010 just got harder.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders :      Surely you jest! We're talking about the Uncle Al led Raiders.  
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Terrible division and its hard in this day and age for a team to stay at the bottom although I concur Al would be the guy to keep them down. Oaklands defensive line is its weakest link. Maybe with Seymour not anymore!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders :      Amen. While its' true that the defense-challenged Pats will suffer some this year...its' a brilliant move for the future...one that had to be made. Richard Seymour has been somewhat injury prone...and is in his 30s. The Pats need to rebuild, and get younger on defense. Now, they have a golden opportunity to acquire that stud pass-rusher, stud LT, or, even a stud young QB (in the event that Tom Terrific suffers another injury), with which to rebuild around.      Brilliant, gutsy move by BB.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Seymour was our best defensive player last year while playing in 15 games. He is 29. I completely understand this move as building for the future. BB has maximized value now by landing a 1st rd pick. My problem is that defense has been the reason we dont have 5 superbowls since 2001 and this move in no way shape or form helps our defense this year. Great move for future but Brady's time is now!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JYaso. Show JYaso's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]yup...not a bad move..he was getting older...now the thing to ask yourself...how many superbowl rings on the team now?  Tom's 3 and Wilfork's 3?  so 6? If Seymour is getting on in age...should we be concerned with Brady? Would Cassell been a better long term choice at this point? considering knee and age?  now his shoulder is of concern?  It's heresy...but i'm sure it's been considered.
    Posted by hock8889[/QUOTE]


    Kevin Faulk--- 3

    MAtt Light--- 2

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JYaso. Show JYaso's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders : Seymour was our best defensive player last year while playing in 15 games. He is 29. I completely understand this move as building for the future. BB has maximized value now by landing a 1st rd pick. My problem is that defense has been the reason we dont have 5 superbowls since 2001 and this move in no way shape or form helps our defense this year. Great move for future but Brady's time is now!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Mayo was the best Defensive player last Year.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders : I think everyone knows this is a good long term move. Any trade with a player that is north of 30 that brings a first round pick is a good move. Long term there is not doubt in my mind this is a great long term move. But I wanted to go 19-0 this year. I wanted another ring this year. Randy Moss is not getting younger, Tom Brady is not getting younger. You can talk about a 1st round QB stud, but the 1st round studs are more busts than studs. Maybe I am selfish, maybe I am foolish, maybe I am a troll, but I wanted to go 19-0, beat the Giants in the Super Bowl and cement the Pats in football history forever. No matter what you say about the long term, a Super Bowl this year is now harder. Put any spin you like on the trade, you can like it, love it or hate it, but winning the Super Bowl in 2010 just got harder.
    Posted by One-If-By-Sea[/QUOTE]

    Seymour is 29 which puts him on south side of 30! We just traded our best defensive player on our team and I, like you wanted to win this year. I am not saying it won't happen but I am saying there is no doubt this trade does not help us win a superbowl this year!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders : Mayo was the best Defensive player last Year.
    Posted by JYaso[/QUOTE]

    I can understand your view point. You could also make the argument that Vince was the best but all 3 of these players are in the discussion and one of them is gone.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders : I think everyone knows this is a good long term move. Any trade with a player that is north of 30 that brings a first round pick is a good move. Long term there is not doubt in my mind this is a great long term move. But I wanted to go 19-0 this year. I wanted another ring this year. Randy Moss is not getting younger, Tom Brady is not getting younger. You can talk about a 1st round QB stud, but the 1st round studs are more busts than studs. Maybe I am selfish, maybe I am foolish, maybe I am a troll, but I wanted to go 19-0, beat the Giants in the Super Bowl and cement the Pats in football history forever. No matter what you say about the long term, a Super Bowl this year is now harder. Put any spin you like on the trade, you can like it, love it or hate it, but winning the Super Bowl in 2010 just got harder.
    Posted by One-If-By-Sea[/QUOTE]Noble thoughts but no team is going undefeated now. Remeber that Seymour was part of the dewfense that was beaten by the Giants in the Superbowl and was offf the field much of the time in the past 4 years. He will be replaced adequately with the Pats going to a 4-3.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrogLegs. Show FrogLegs's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE] Seymour is 29 which puts him on south side of 30! We just traded our best defensive player on our team and I, like you wanted to win this year. I am not saying it won't happen but I am saying there is no doubt this trade does not help us win a superbowl this year!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree with you: that move could turn out to be great for the future but doesn't help the Pats to win a Superbowl NOW. They should try to win as many Bowls as possible as long as they have Brady...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2.. Show Tcal2.'s posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders



    F'in Brilliant.

    The best part is there should be a rookie salary cap in place by 2011.  Meaning we may actually us the pick instead of trading it.

    BB is a genius!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoahJustin. Show NoahJustin's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Trenches/entry/view/33253/breaking_down_the_richard_seymour_trade This is a pretty good reason for the trade.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Trenches/entry/view/33253/breaking_down_the_richard_seymour_trade This is a pretty good reason for the trade.
    Posted by NoahJustin[/QUOTE]

         LOL!!! The author of this article can't be serious. The Pats did not lose to the Colts in the 2006 AFC title game because they didn't have Deion Branch. They lost because of the usual preferrential treatment given Indy by the referees...and because their injury ravaged defense couldn't hold Peyton and the boys when they had to. 

         Losing Seymour seems huge now...but Jarvis Green is a capable replacement. Plus, you never know what other aces BB may have up his sleeve. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]Are you serious, we are letting Seymour go to Oakland. They have nothing we want. Better be at least a first round pick.
    Posted by patriots44[/QUOTE]

    I prefer keeping Wilfork vs. Seymour. He has knee problems and was "healthy" last year. It'll be interesting to see how things go in the future.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tagandtrade. Show tagandtrade's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    This is a great move last time I checked when the Ravens won the bowl in 2000 they were running a HUGE 4-3 cover two defense and they used a lot of nickle...

    When i look at this defense i see it returning to the Carol days a Strong Side DE "Warren" he will play DT/DE hybrid and move to the TE side on every play.

    Burgess will rotate to the weak side to prevent double coverage on the bull rush

    This DE is going to be NASTY... Bodden, Springs and Merriwheather are awesome the only question marks are on Sanders, Wheatley and Butler...

    Wilhite and Chung will progressively get better through the year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders :      LOL!!! The author of this article can't be serious. The Pats did not lose to the Colts in the 2006 AFC title game because they didn't have Deion Branch. They lost because of the usual preferrential treatment given Indy by the referees...and because their injury ravaged defense couldn't hold Peyton and the boys when they had to.       Losing Seymour seems huge now...but Jarvis Green is a capable replacement. Plus, you never know what other aces BB may have up his sleeve. 
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Well said Tex I distinctly remember 2 pass interference calls 1 on 3rd and long and 1 on 4rth down that were prayer passes which put indy on the 1 yard line. Phill Simms said"thats was face guarding on ellis hobbs" then after the commercial break Simms apoligized saying"face guarding was a rule that was taking out of the league 6 years ago nevermind I don't know what the refs were looking at on that play"

    Anyway I love Jarvis Green but if he was capable of every down play then he would play every down. Losing Seymour helps us in the future but hurts us this year there is no way around it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]This is a great move last time I checked when the Ravens won the bowl in 2000 they were running a HUGE 4-3 cover two defense and they used a lot of nickle... When i look at this defense i see it returning to the Carol days a Strong Side DE "Warren" he will play DT/DE hybrid and move to the TE side on every play. Burgess will rotate to the weak side to prevent double coverage on the bull rush This DE is going to be NASTY... Bodden, Springs and Merriwheather are awesome the only question marks are on Sanders, Wheatley and Butler... Wilhite and Chung will progressively get better through the year.
    Posted by tagandtrade[/QUOTE]

    Wait so going back to the Carol days will be a good thing for the Patriots?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Bill we trust !! 

    Trust me, a great move for the Patriots. They save $3.685 million off of the salary cap which could be used for Wilfok, or use to pick up a veteran QB, which has to happen as Hoyer has looked good, but he's still only a rookie, or pick up another back up to fill any weaknesses in the roster.

    Seymour is still in his prime at 29 and probably has a number of good years ahead, but with a year left on his current contract a healthy increase would have been forthcoming. It's a business move only, and the Pats seem to be about the best in the NFL in running a business from Kraft on down to BB. Hate to see Seymour go in that he goes from a team which is among the elite in the NFL, to a once proud franchise that is now at best, is tripping over thier own feet.  Unless the Raiders finally figure it out the Pats should recieve a good first round pick, but as someone else pointed out, thier have been many first round busts in the NFL every year, and plus All-Pros, and great player have come from from second & third rounds and much lower, Brady included. 


     

         
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from One-If-By-Sea. Show One-If-By-Sea's posts

    Re: Seymour to Raiders

    In Response to Re: Seymour to Raiders:
    [QUOTE]http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Trenches/entry/view/33253/breaking_down_the_richard_seymour_trade This is a pretty good reason for the trade.
    Posted by NoahJustin[/QUOTE]

    The ending to that article is correct:

    "This relates to the Branch example. Sure, it's nice to have a full complement of draft picks. But if you cost yourself championship opportunities now, by trading one of the few impact defensive players you have left, and that opportunity has dwindled by the time you get to use those picks, then what good is that?

    The Patriots will contend as long as Belichick's there, but they're contending at the highest level now, and there's a chance they won't be then."

    This is a gamble, short-term vs. long-term. I was happy with gambling on Bledsoe leaving, on Tebucky Jones leaving, but not so much on Deion leaving. I did not like it when Law or Samuel left. I do not like it with Seymour leaving. I understand Seymour was only for 1 more year, so maybe it is OK. But this one is tough to swallow. Great player - he will be missed more than we realize.
     

Share